In cases of personal injury under the Motor Vehicles Act, tribunals must assess compensation under recognized pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, using reasonable guesswork such as minimum wage benchmarks when documentary proof of income is absent, to ensure the award is just and commensurate with the injuries sustained.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,49,000/- was awarded in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident.

2. The appellant seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that the learned Tribunal awarded wholly inadequate compensation and failed to assess the claim in accordance with the settled principles governing determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. At the outset, it deserves notice that though the claim petition was stated to have been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Tribunal framed issues regarding rash and negligent driving and proceeded to adjudicate negligence on the part of respondent No.1-driver. The evidence was also led by the parties on the aspect of negligence. Once the matter was tried on the touchstone of fault liability and findings were recorded regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claim necessarily assumes the character of a petition under Section 166 of the Act. Mere incorrect nomenclature or mention of a provision would not defeat the substantive rights of the claimant. The proceedings are, thus, treated and construed as one under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. As sole issue for determination in present appeals is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in awarding compensation only towards medical bills and completely ignored the settled heads under which compensation was required to be awarded in an injury case under Section 166 of the Act. It was submitted that the appellant remained hospitalized for a considerable period, underwent prolonged treatment, suffered fractures of vital parts of the body and had to engage an attendant and incur transportation expenses for treatment at Chandigarh. He further contended that no amount has been awarded towards pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, transportation expenses, loss of income during treatment period, loss of amenities of life and future prospects arising out of disability and trauma suffered by the appellant, therefore, he prayed that the award of the Tribunal be suitably modified in accordance with law.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the le